The real crime is having an opinion not sponsored by a government-approved source of propaganda.

Excellent friend Franklin Carter at the Book and Periodical Council's Freedom of Expression Committee writes to tell me about this: In “Government crackdown on hatred goes a link too far” ( Kingston Whig-Standard, August 15, 2011), Alan Shanoff asks, “Is the federal government proposing to make hyperlinking a crime?”

That seems to be the case when you read Bill C-51, a federal bill called Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act.

The stated purpose of Bill C-51 is the modernization of certain criminal offences. One of the offences to be modernized is the offence of public promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. ...

The new and improved modernized definition makes it crystal clear that hyperlinking is a form of communication. After all, what better way to make something available than providing a link to it, a link you can access with the click of a mouse?

He asks, “ ... many of these sites contain hurtful language but should anybody linking to such sites for any reason be at risk of prosecution?”

Yes indeed, depending on what one means by “Investigative Powers for the 21st Century.” The real crime is having an opinion not sponsored by a government-approved source of propaganda.

If it passes, here is what can happen to the blogger:

1. Lillian Rose is a garden maven whose blog frequently features links to botanist John Turricle’s wonderful work on mildew-resistant blooms. Retirees, into gardening, love her blog.

Rose doesn’t know it, but Turricle is also an avowed racist, and features his eruptions on race in the “Other” section of his blog - stuff she has never so much as looked at, because she and her readers are totally focused on winning the flower show.

Sorry, Rose. Someone complained, and linkers like you were then eagerly sought, by armies of bureaucrats with nothing better to do. So, GAVEL!! Guilty! of spreading hate, with all the fines, adult reform school, and humiliation that implies. Gardening blog hobby, ... toast.

2. Honest John Deal runs a business catering to amputees. Some of his assisted living devices come from a site whose owner insists, from time to time, on featuring anti-Muslim editorials.

Honest John doesn’t agree with the site owners’s views, but that guy is the one distributor who ships to John’s area with no hassles, and amputees hobble by every single day to see if their life-assisting shipments are safely in.

Sorry, John. Someone complained, and linkers like you were then eagerly sought, by armies of bureaucrats with nothing better to do. So, GAVEL!! Guilty! of spreading hate, with all the fines, adult reform school, and humiliation that implies. Business helping others, ... toast.

3. Annie Sellfridge owns and operates an appliance store in a multicultural area. She puts her inventory on line, and also features a popular site section on Saving on Electricity Bills. She doesn’t know it, but one of the sites she linked to is run by “climate change deniers,” who provide their free opinion on that subject, along with advice about energy-efficient appliances. (All Sellfridge was interested in was the fact that they provide multinational numbers , so new immigrant customers can relate to the numbers they best understand.)

Sorry, Annie. Someone complained, and linkers like you were then eagerly sought, by armies of bureaucrats with nothing better to do. So, GAVEL!! Guilty! of spreading hate, with all the fines, adult reform school, and humiliation that implies. Business providing a needed service, ... toast.

4. Blogger O’Leary was interviewing the author of an anti-eugenics book, and - to clearly demo the fact that antique forms of racism survive to the present day - she links to one of them.

Sorry, O’Leary. Someone complained, and linkers like you were then eagerly sought, by armies of bureaucrats with nothing better to do. So, GAVEL!! Guilty! of ...

Spreading: yuh, whatever.

If government cannot do better than this, let’s just dispense with government. Okay? How much worse off would we be without it? Alternatively, write to your Member of Parliament. Tell them you think the Internet should be free, like the press.

And read Tyranny of Nice, Shakedown, and America Alone. And any book on civil liberties.

Protestors of Muslim prayer in secular public schools - don’t be swayed by this false argument

Those who gather to protest the mosqueterias tonight at the Toronto District School Board offices may hear this: “For many years, Christian prayer - and only Christian prayer - was allowed because you were a majority. You only care now because in some districts, another religious grooup is a majority and wants the same thing.”

The people who might say such a thing are appallingly ignorant, but there is no law against that.

The skinny: When Canada was founded in 1867, it had two strong religious cultures at loggerheads, Protestant vs. Catholic. And churches were largely responsible for education back then.

Disunity could have destroyed the country, so a political compromise created “Protestant” schools vs. “Catholic” schools - each supported by its own taxpayers. No, it ain’t pretty, but religious civil war is uglier, and in any event, it worked.

Over 150 years, the Protestant system gradually morphed into the “public,” secular system, with no religious orientation now preferred - both by law and by general preference.

History doesn’t matter in this situation, because a choice has been made against it. Anyone who brings it up is introducing a red herring that might divide people who should work together.

Toronto District School Board’s plan for peace re sharia-compliant schools

Re the Mosqueterias in sharia-compliant school districts, like the biggest school board in Canada: A proposed

Draft message from the Toronto District School Board to students:

To: students, parents, ratepayers

Date: [tbd]

Subject: Complaints received re sharia schools

--

We feel your pain.

Ever aiming at new levels of balance and diversity, we plan to address the complaints by shortly instituting "Spirituality for gay/lesbian/transgendered/queer/exploring/uncertain teens," proving them with appropriate worship and clergy counselling in previously public space.

[Politician: Good! Balance out the only lobbies that matter.]

We will, of course, continue to suppress observant Christian and Jewish teens who want access to spiritual counselling, lest their harmful culture is propagated. They could end up concluding that some lifestyles are bad for them and that they have the power to decide for themselves.

We want to take this opportunity to reassure our whole community that that goes against everything we believe here at the Board. Fact and rationality are “out the window” now, in favour of diversity studies, post-modernism, deconstruction, victimhood, and plunging IQs.

[Union head: Great! More shight, less fear of an “incompetence” evaluation. Bring it on.]

We pledge to promote any weirdness or hatred whatever, as long as you think you can’t help yourself or your family is forcing you to. We are especially supportive if someone will kill you if you don't go along with the [shight]. We’ll help you adjust to the terror.

[Editor: How did “shight” get in here? We certainly need a better word than that. How about “life affirmation”? Too woo-woo? Wait! Try “peace amid diversity”? Yes, that’s it! Put it in!]

Finally, we promise to continue to shake down the public to support your oppression. Human Rights Commissions have the authority to persecute anyone who thinks you should have a second look before you jump. They've gone after very prominent Canadians, so there is no fear that you will ever get out from under Trudeaupia.

[Recommendation from equity reviewer O’Leary, just before slitting her throat: To drive the point home, make the little serfs study Canadian Icon Margaret Atwood’s horror novel about “Gilead,” a mythical theocracy in the southern United States. We can’t permit the young swine to realize that theocracy is happening here, and not there. For effect, throw in another compulsory Atwood three-loon special, will you? Just to teach them to ALWAYS point the finger abroad, to distract attention from what's happening at home.]

Note: Everything above is fiction except for the facts.

To my school board trustee: On the tax-funded sharia “public” school, in Toronto

On the tax-funded sharia “public” school, featuring compulsory attendance for those who can’t afford private or home schooling:

I used to work with the Toronto District School Board as an equity reviewer. Seeing this, and reading background information, I must ask, Is there some reason that the Board should continue to exist? Couldn’t we have female "uncleanness" and exclusion of those who don’t adhere to the correct religion without a school board?

There are lots of places where nobody goes to school and everybody behaves that way and thinks it is right. What are you trustees adding besides my tax dollars at work?

You, at least, I trust to help put a stop to this.

sincerely,
Denyse O’Leary
(a taxpayer compelled to fund exalting one religion over others and female uncleanness over equality - just think, the City could seize my property if I refused to fund what we all fought all our lives against ... what I was paid by the Board to work against! When did the war that we lost even happen? Where? Memory loss on my part?)

Note: Here are the trustees.

Note 2: Yes,the blog is still on hold, as I got a much-needed extension for the book till November 1, 2012.

A second open letter to Guy Earle

Guyzini, old cat, you might remember me, the Toronto granny who encouraged you in the early stages of what has now become a five-star “human rights tribunal” debacle. Good for you, pursuing it to the Supreme Court and I’ll back you. But couple things first:

First, you may lose the case, which further endangers the civil rights of everyone who does NOT live by the growing monster of government. Still, you might win. But either way, Five Feet of Fury  is doubtless right in thinking that no help can come from the political class itself now. The revolt must begin from below and be fueled by the monstrosities people like yourself endure.

The key hope is, know the territory and its inhabitants. See, you’ve now learned what it really means to be “transgressive.” Your friends thought transgressive is a tee shirt titter, but you were transgressive, and are you laughing now?

No, please listen: Many think they are “transgressive” when they offend people who have no social power. People like that used to be called “snobs” and “bullies.” But times change, and so do values and terminology. Now those people are culture heroes, and you are a villain who must be humiliated, degraded, and rendered penniless, as crowds cheer.

And what did you really do? You transgressed “group rights”, the key Nanny State concept. What are you, compared with an aggrieved group, whose grievances cash out into ever more power over all of our lives for governments that rule by shakedown?

Second, please let’s face real enemies, not pretend ones. Recently, I was listening to someone carry on about growing religious power in politics, and he opined that one couldn’t make a Monte Python “Life of Brian” film today. I hit the remote. Why? Because that’s not true. The Next Big Thing might well be a lavish big screen porno flick on Jesus. And if the producer’s idea of persecution is some fundies helping his box office by picketing on the sidewalk, couldn’t he better understand what persecution really means by walking in your shoes for, oh, ‘bout the decade it’ll take you overall?

Meanwhile, if he tried that with the life of Mohammed, he’d be head-absent, but he’s too much of an oops-on-the-carpet to admit that. Guy, people who can’t say “radical Islam” or “gay fascism” are AWOL, and you can’t afford them right now.

Some claim you made a mistake by trying to reach out to grievance groups. If so, past is past. In general, such groups can’t accept peace offerings; they understand and live by plunder.

We press on, keep me posted. My blog really is on hold till I get a very challenging book off my back, but be sure I will do what I can. And I fear no one but God.

Here are links to key media, and here is American Spectator.
Read more »

Blog on hold till June 15

Because I am writing a book and working for a living, I have regretfully decided that the only time management solution is to put this blog on hold until June 15, 2011.

I thank all regular readers and occasional donors.

Always glad to share a good read and thoughts thereon. The blog search box at the top left will give you access to all past stories.

I will still be blogging at Access Research Network (bottom row of headlines), Salvo, and Uncommon Descent.

Good luck to all in the happy hunting ground of materialist nonsense that so much pop science has become.

Design of his body gives injured pantheist shivers

A friend notes this pantheist discovering what design means:

ecause I had just been reading Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box where he explains the obstacles to Darwin’s theory of evolution, namely gradualism in the face of all the scientific advances since the discovery of the microscope, DNA etc., I was particularly interested by the way a health professional such as Doctor #2 phrased his explanation of why I shouldn’t be too worried about the blow to my side: “Whoever designed us has done an excellent job of hiding most of the liver behind the ribcage…”

. I had just been reading hundreds of pages proposing an alternative to Darwin’s evolutionary theory, namely the argument for intelligent design and what he was saying convince me that we were on the same page. Of course the argument for design vs undirected process has been going on long before Darwin but the word "design" triggered something in me. The fact that this doctor was talking about our ‘design’ as if it was purposefully done by someone (or something) gave me a shiver.

Hope his liver recovers. That's the design of life.

Open letter: Do you want to pay each time you look at my blog, or any blog?

Think of the implications ...

While this is happening in Canada, it could certainly be happening where you are too. Find out.

Go here for context.

A friend writes,

I wanted to pass along something I read today... As you are aware, my line of work greatly depends on Internet access. Please take the time to read this and at the very least, sign the petition at http://openmedia.ca/meter if you agree that this issue must be quashed.

Originally all ISPs in Canada were using Usage Based Billing (UBB) models for dial-up access. The large providers like Bell and Rogers argued to the CRTC that they should be able to provide unlimited access. This was allowed, and it effectively put all the small independent ISPs out of business because they couldn’t compete with companies the size of Bell. Now, they are arguing the opposite.

Bell wants to be able to charge UBB not only to home owners, but also small ISPs who rent lines from Bell. Bell’s plan is to charge the same rate to both. How would a small independent ISP be able to offer competitive rates if they are paying the same as the customer base? In a recent appeal Bell offered ISPs a 15% discount. Sadly most businesses need at least a 24 - 28% profit margin in order to cover costs.

Rogers, Shaw and Cogeco have always had unlimited download capacity. In fact, I remember a series of TV ads a number of years ago where they flaunted this as a selling feature. My own ISP (Cogeco) started this in January of this year, and I was switched over from an unlimited plan to a UBB plan. When I called to inquire, I was told by customer service that this is the way it is now, and Bell is doing it too — too bad. When I checked Bell’s web page they had already started their UBB. My Internet rate WAS $34 per month for unlimited. I know pay $60 a month for 125g per month. The worst of this is that they WILL NOT guarantee transfer speed. They can only promise that speeds “can be UP TO 30mbps”.

According to Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix, the true cost of supplying bandwidth to users is about $.01 per gig. True, he probably has an agenda, so lets multiply that by 10 and say its really $.10 per gig. If I am receiving 125gig per month, then the cost to Cogeco is $12.50 for bandwidth, if I use ALL of it. The remaining $47.50 is money in the bank for Cogeco.

Why else should you care?

Well, Bell, Shaw, Cogeco, and Rogers are all multi-service providers. They provide TV, Internet, Phone, and a couple provide cell phones. As media providers they all have a vested interest in eliminating as much outside competition as possible.

Read more »

Shut up and pay, you morons ...

Here, British physicist David Tyler asks, "Are 72% of biology teachers hindering scientific literacy in the US?"

Some have described the survey as shocking. The authors of the report are gloomy about their findings. The perceived problem is this: evolutionists have won court cases bearing on the teaching of evolution in schools; state curricular standards have been revised to reinforce the status of evolutionary theory in biology - but despite all this, "considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America's classrooms". The problem is that only 28% of teachers are forthrightly explaining evolutionary biology.

The fact that the 60% who teach microevolution (minor, demonstrated instances of evolution) are called "the mushy middle"makes the agenda clear: Tax funding to and court judgments, to teach Darwinism as a belief system about life when it is less and less supported by evidence.

... they want to target teachers in training:

"More effectively integrating evolution into the education of preservice biology teachers may also have the indirect effect of encouraging students who cannot accept evolution as a matter of faith to pursue other careers. Effective programs directed at preservice teachers can therefore both reduce the number of evolution deniers in the nation's classrooms, increase the number who would gladly accept help in teaching evolution, and increase the number of cautious teachers who are nevertheless willing to embrace rigorous standards. This would reduce the supply of teachers who are especially attractive to the most conservative school districts, weakening the cycle of ignorance."

For more, go here.

So shut up, you morons, and pay. Your science-talented kids can mow lawns for mediocrities shouting the shoot for Darwin. It's not your money and they're not your kids, and all truth is Darwin's truth.

Or not.

Readings for Evolution Sunday I

Via this:

Here's what atheist evolution gurus think of Christian Darwinists:

I, at least, think the NCSE shouldn’t take the theological position that faith is consistent with science. And the NCSE should limit its discussion about faith to saying that there are a variety of views about the consilience of science and faith and somebody in conflict should consult his/her minister. People like Larry Moran, P.Z., and I have been saying this for years, but it doesn’t seem to have penetrated Josh’s consciousness.

"Josh" is a professional Darwin lobbyist who carries out boss Eugenie Scott's dictum that a dog collar is worth two white coats, when working the crowd.

The inimitable Jerry Coyne, attack by under-Darwin lobbyist Josh, roars back:

Having read my post from last Sunday, in which I discussed—civilly!—science and religion with a reading group at Chicago’s First United Methodist Church, Rosenau has somehow concluded that I’m an accommodationist!

But why are they all so upset? Does anyone imagine that the people who sit through Evolution Sunday and twiddle their cause-of-the-month buttons, placid and questionless, would be troubled by the idea that they are despised? Accommodationists expect to be despised when they join what they think is the winning side.

I don't despise them; I am concerned for their future.

Design without creation? Sure.

The Darwin lobby insists that design in nature must mean "creationism", which is currently as popular among Our Moral and Intellectual Superiors as any kind of actual dissent from their easily falsified nostrums.

Philosopher of science Del Ratzsch, whose work first inspired me to write By Design or by Chance?, offers an example of design without creation, where origin of life is concerned:

For instance, suppose that we finally discover that life can arise spontaneously but only under exactly one set of conditions. One must begin with 4003.6 gallons of eight specific, absolutely pure chemicals, exactly proportioned down to the molecule. The mixture must then be sealed into a large, light green Tupperware container with one sterile copy of "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." Do that, and life develops spontaneously by natural means (catalyzed by the precise surface characteristics of "Sgt. Pepper"). Its development, subsequent reproductions and characteristics are completely according to normal natural laws. And life in this case was not directly specially created. But those initial conditions involve interjection of deliberate intent and design with a vengeance." (Ratzsch D., "Design, Chance & Theistic Evolution," in Dembski W.A., ed., Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1998, p. 291)

Now, a dullard might object that Del's is an unlikely recipe for life; his point is, of course, that a recipe is design using existing ingredients, not creation ex nihilo of the ingredients along with the design.

Intelligent design theorists are harassed, in my view, for the precise reason that the origin of life really is best attributed to design, not law or chance, as Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009) affirms.

The law and chance people know well that that is what it looks like, and are constantly advising the rest of us not to trust our lyin' eyes.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Edge Question: Which science concept would make everyone think better?

Here is the "Edge World Question Center", a leading materialist think tank, with 2011's Question:

THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER

James Flynn has defined "shorthand abstractions" (or "SHA's") as concepts drawn from science that have become part of the language and make people smarter by providing widely applicable templates ("market", "placebo", "random sample," "naturalistic fallacy," are a few of his examples). His idea is that the abstraction is available as a single cognitive chunk which can be used as an element in thinking and debate.

The Edge Question 2011

WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY'S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT?

The term 'scientific"is to be understood in a broad sense as the most reliable way of gaining knowledge about anything, whether it be the human spirit, the role of great people in history, or the structure of DNA. A "scientific concept" may come from philosophy, logic, economics, jurisprudence, or other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a rigorous conceptual tool that may be summed up succinctly (or "in a phrase") but has broad application to understanding the world.

[Thanks to Steven Pinker for suggesting this year's Edge Question and to Daniel Kahneman for advice on its presentation.]

164 contributors, many whose names you will recognize, participated.

Any thoughts of your own? Go here to comment.

Note: Interesting, how many key words from medicine easily come to mind, yet medicine has slowly been moving away from a materialist paradigm, as Mario Beauregard and I noted in The Spiritual Brain.

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

Excitable DNA: Could design have predicted that?

Here, Jonathan McLatchie comments on the new finding of the “excited state” of the double helix:

An interesting paper published in Nature by Evgenia et al. documents the ability of the DNA double helix to exist in a functional alternative form for 1% of the time, called an "excited state." What does this mean for neo-Darwinism?

[ ... ]


As the papers' authors suggest, those results may imply that the DNA molecule is responsible for coding for excited state Hoogsteen base pairs as a means by which it can expand its structural complexity beyond that which it is able to achieve through classical Watson-Crick base-pairing.

If this prediction is correct, then it succeeds in adding a whole additional layer to the information enigma. This, of course, raises the pertinent issue of whether this discovery sits more comfortably with a neo-Darwinian paradigm or with an ID paradigm. Since neo-Darwinism, to date, may be considered to be demonstrably impotent to account for that specific property of living systems -- namely, information -- I would be inclined to significantly favour the latter.

Okay, but - what Jonathan and others need is to make successful predictions in advance. That’s what gets people’s attention.

Fact is, neo-Darwinism is a shambles, except for the taxpayer and the friendly judge. And for that very reason any fact, fiction, or nonsense can be cited as supporting it. Successful advance predictions are one of the few ways to break through in such cases.

This is the sort of thing I mean:

The 3 fundal height measurement techniques studied were: a tape measure method that included the upper curve of the uterine fundus in the measurement; a second tape technique that did not include the upper curve; and a caliper technique measuring from the symphysis pubis to the uterine fundus. Blank tapes were used so that clinicians were blinded and the numerical markings on the caliper were concealed with tape. Fundal height measurements were obtained in succession using the 3 techniques and each was obtained twice by 2 different examiners. The clinician marked the tape with ink at the appropriate point and, once all of the measurements had been obtained, the data collection material was placed in a sealed envelope until all of the participants had been assessed.

How to get moderated for making a polite request at Fox News

A friend tells a familiar story:

I see in today's FOX science/tech section, there's a blurb about how creationism is still being advocated in H.S. biology classes. Predictably, the author has equivocated creationism with ID. I sent the author of the article this very brief message, and also posted it on the comments section, but somebody flagged my message and all future attempts to post were thwarted by a moderation notice. [emphasis added]

Here’s the offending notice:

Ms/Mrs Jennifer Welsh, if you will kindly look at the definition of Intelligent Design put forth by its main proponents (www.intelligentdesign.org is a good place to start), you will see that ID does not depend on any religious narrative (as found in the Bible) and thus has no religious premise. In contrast, creationism is a creation account that depends on some religious creation narrative (like in the Bible) and begins with a religious premise (God created). As you can see, ID is distinct from creationism, and is thus not religious or creationism.


Please, stand up for intellectual and journalistic integrity. Please correct your article to reflect the actual definition of Intelligent Design.

My friend misunderstands the nature of popular media. Ms. Welsh and colleagues have zero interest in knowing that design no more means creation, than painting a picture means creating the paint and canvas from thin air before one begins. Evidence of design is not evidence of creation, but it is real and detectible because it adds high levels of information.

But a whole generation was raised on elephant art, chimpanzee trample art, food fight art, “whatever he did is art”. No wonder they wouldn’t understand that design is not creation, just as art is about design, not making a “creative” mess.

Common sense distinctions that seem evident to my friend are way above the pop science media IQ grade.

For example, here’s a generic story: "Origin of life scientist says final answer expected in next decade" (= recycle the story from 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 ..., same schtick, new white coats)

Success in the pop science business depends critically on either not being smart enough to ask the obvious question or - as I suspect - being smart enough not to ask.

Just go elsewhere for your news.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Social changes that may impact the intelligent design community: Media

American scholar Victor Davis Hanson recently pointed out that the university as a standard setter of any kind is coming under well-deserved scrutiny, along with its instruments, such as peer review and tenure.

But he also mentions the obvious,

Americans no longer count on their news to be filtered and shaped by the Associated Press or the New York Times. Nor do millions have it read to them in the evening by CBS, ABC or NBC anchorpersons -- not with the Internet, cable news and talk radio. Matt Drudge's website, "The Drudge Report," reaches far more Americans than does CBS anchor star Katie Couric.

That’s true, but a broader way of looking at it is, today the news audience decides what is news. When I was young, there were only a few established news sources other than rumour. Now there are hundreds. If CBS anchor star Katie Couric isn’t today’s Huntley-and-Brinkley, it’s because her audience is limited to those who agree with her interpretation of news. Those who don’t can find the basic facts, but differently interpreted, elsewhere.

There was a time when, if you wondered whether the multiverse or the Big Bazooms theory of human evolution or “you’re nothing but a pack of neurons” view of the mind make any sense, you would not have had access to the scholarly literature that provides another look. Or only with considerable effort. So it just sunk in. Now, alternative viewpoints are easy to find.

Put simply, the mere fact that pop science rags are smitten with ultra-Darwinists, cosmology cranks, and mind-is-mud zealots no longer means you can’t find an informed alternative perspective on these issues.
There was never a better time for constructive takedowns of nonsense.

But Hanson warns,

... we also are seeing the waning of an old established order. And the resulting furor suggests that the old beneficiaries are not going quietly into that good night.

No indeed. True to form, they want the government to fund and protect them. Which amounts to saying that old media want the people who pointedly don’t watch , listen, or read them to pay for the right to ignore them.